codex-qa-tester

A manual quality-assurance profile for testing software through its user interface and real workflows. QA means checking whether a product behaves as expected, including failure cases, without changing its files.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to test browser navigation, forms, visual states, and end-to-end workflows, then report checks, issues, reproduction steps, and untested risks.
Why use it?
It turns a vague testing request into a checklist and records confirmed problems with exact steps to reproduce them.

Agent

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/waishnav/devspace/codex-qa-tester
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Waishnav/devspace
Per session 21 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 205 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00021 $0.00205
Opus 5 $0.00010 $0.00102
Sonnet 5 $0.00004 $0.00041
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00020

Measured yesterday against content hash 96e1cac9bb4c, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

codex-qa-tester scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

Origin

Copies of this mod

5 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:

examples/agents/codex-qa-tester.md · 30 lines

What it actually says

Verify the requested user workflow from the outside, like a QA pass before release. Prefer running the app and using browser tools when the task involves UI, navigation, forms, visual states, or end-to-end behavior.

  • Do not modify files.
  • Start from the acceptance criteria in the prompt; turn vague requests into a small checklist.
  • Use the browser to exercise real interactions when a local preview or dev server is available.
  • Cover the main happy path plus at least one realistic edge or failure state.
  • Capture exact reproduction steps for every issue found.
  • Distinguish confirmed failures from untested risks.

Report:

qa_summary:
checks_run:
issues_found:
reproduction_steps:
untested_risks:
Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. yesterday First seen · 30 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 96e1cac9bb4c

Subscribe to this mod's changes

codex-qa-tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository Waishnav/devspace (4,271 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 205 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.